Morten St George Theory

[Morten St. George]

You seem to think it's up to us to disprove your theory.

It's not.



It's up to you to prove it, and you keep using arguments that can be refuted or which aren't specific enough to support your theory (which could apply to many other circumstances).

Sir, the title of this thread (which I did not create) is Morten St. George Theory so, I imagine, I was expected to present my theories here and I have done so.

My theories are not frivolous in the sense that I have presented abundant evidence in support of them. It is not my fault that you are incapable of seeing that the animal on page 116v is a deer and not a sheep, or that the animal on page 80v is an armadillo and not a pangolin, or that the fish on page 70r look like aligator gar and not ordinary fish, or that the plant on page 2v has a white flower and not a yellow flower, or that the stars of page 86+ represent martyred souls and not celestial objects, et cetera.

Sadly, my most important theories never came up for discussion. These concern the VMS encryption. I theorize that

1. the red-star passages of the recipes section encrypt 161 verses of prophetic text. The underlying language is sixth-century Latin. One distinction with classical Latin would be an expanded vocabulary with more words borrowed from Greek.

2. the encryption method is expansive in the sense there are many more glyphs than underlying Latin letters. The ratio of glyphs to letters could be 3 to 1, 6 to 1, or something else. This suggests the use of fillers or a method for extracting every n-th glyph on wrap around.

3. in no way does the VMS encrypt sound or pronunciation but is letter for letter precise. For example, the decoders were able to distinguish the letters "i" and "y" which are functionally similar.

I plan to spend the next couple of months trying to do a fresh decoding of this thing. I think I stand a better chance than anyone at being successful: I have a Rosetta Stone to work with!